Opinion
No. 06-70522.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 14, 2007.
Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristen Byrnes Floom, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A70-346-170.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nazrul Suleman Nisha, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision because Nisha did not demonstrate an objective, well-founded fear of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d at 1245 (stating that general claims of broader ethnic tension across Fijian society do not establish statutory persecution). Accordingly, Nisha is not eligible for asylum.
Because Nisha failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d at 340.